On Tuesday 16 August 2016 10:08 PM, avri doria wrote:
snip I think that ICANN is exceptional in its characteristic as a multistakeholder run organization dealing with a global issue that established its principles in a bottom manner.
As for the current state of transparency being pathetic, though I think improving by baby steps. that is one thing we are here to fix. We do not need for everyone to accept specific labels in order for this to be the case. We just need to fix it.
When a body makes policies, especially if on socially important matters, which apply to all public, and it has means to enforce them, it is undertaking a 'public governance' function. This is definitional. There can be disagreement and a discussion on how such 'public governance' is undertaken - through the traditional election based, centralised state system, or new issue specific systems, possibly a multistakeholder kind. But how can the very nature of the function be denied, that is wholly un-understandable and unacceptable. We better not fiddle with such basis concepts of political science. Just trying to get around some immediate difficult problem - like, how to save the global Internet's technical coordination from arbitrary gov interferences - we may not throw away valuable civilisational ideas, concepts and arrangements like 'public' and 'democracy'. They cannot be treated as dispensable 'labels', they are extremely important ideals to respect, and follow. And in this case too, they have a clear practical value. They can help us the give the basis of the kind of standards of transparency that we expect from ICANN. parminder
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community